heeltap asked:
Where it says “social values & dutys”, please sub “social & cultural values and duties to contribute to family and community cohesion.” I include religions as an important and necessary aspect of culture. TWH 08172006
I appreciate that the first two answerers have not jumped me for the way I put the Q which was intended to draw out sharply the issue of personal and corporate social responsibilities which conflicts with the maxim “maximize profits.”
Only 2 Answers to chose from, one saying that the Canadian alternative where regulations & are imposing social values & dutys & high taxes are funding them are limiting how much a company grows & how rich one can become, and one acknowledging that the problem exists & in need of a solution. Neither answers the morality of companies behaving without recognizing the needs of the social environment that birthed them & sustains them. I was hoping someone would say no megafirm, like no individual has the moral right to act irresponsibly knowingly doing harm to anyone for profit–examples are Bhopal Union Carbide chemical plant location & operating negligence resulting in the death of 20,000+ & the injury of a 100,000 more people, Exxon Valdez captained by an alcoholic, a well known problem in the oil shipping industry, BP’s revelation of collection pipeline corrosion undetected by failure to follow safety protocols & its Texas City plant explosion which killed 15 & injured 100. TWH 08232006
Where it says “social values & dutys”, please sub “social & cultural values and duties to contribute to family and community cohesion.” I include religions as an important and necessary aspect of culture. TWH 08172006
I appreciate that the first two answerers have not jumped me for the way I put the Q which was intended to draw out sharply the issue of personal and corporate social responsibilities which conflicts with the maxim “maximize profits.”
Only 2 Answers to chose from, one saying that the Canadian alternative where regulations & are imposing social values & dutys & high taxes are funding them are limiting how much a company grows & how rich one can become, and one acknowledging that the problem exists & in need of a solution. Neither answers the morality of companies behaving without recognizing the needs of the social environment that birthed them & sustains them. I was hoping someone would say no megafirm, like no individual has the moral right to act irresponsibly knowingly doing harm to anyone for profit–examples are Bhopal Union Carbide chemical plant location & operating negligence resulting in the death of 20,000+ & the injury of a 100,000 more people, Exxon Valdez captained by an alcoholic, a well known problem in the oil shipping industry, BP’s revelation of collection pipeline corrosion undetected by failure to follow safety protocols & its Texas City plant explosion which killed 15 & injured 100. TWH 08232006
You pose a very difiicult question to answer. I see where you are going with this question and you are almost setting a paradox.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is responsible for a large corporation. You have spent your entire life educating yourself, sacrificing home life to further yourself in a career. Once you are now a CEO, would you not want the pay check that follows the responsibility given to you?
As the CEO of a “Mega Firm” your decision making could be the lifeblood of tens of thousand employees who you are responsible for. Should “social values” be a priority over keeping your people employed.
Stock holders help make the company the size it is, should they not be compensated on their investment?
I think a business is responsible to gerate as much income as possible within the rules set forth by the government. A business does not have to answer to a higher power. It is a driver of the economy and keeps the people of the nation fed and clothed.
Socialist society’s (such as the country I live in, Canada)are ripe with flaws in the economy. It is very difficult to become wealthy, and difficult to expand because business do not want to operate here with such a high tax burden.
Society’s who base their economic rules with religious implications are no better off either. Women are either not aloud to contribute to the economy by working, or they must have jobs designated for women. People also have rights and freedoms taken away in this system.
Which do you like best?
Firstly, I don’t think you will find a mega-firm that will say or document that they are willing to sacrifice social values for profit. It would not be in their financial best interest to do so.
However, I understand the point you are making and agree that often, if not documented, the actions of mega-firms confirm their commitment to profit over social responsibility.
Should it be that way? That is tough to answer and could be argued both ways. But until the society in which these company’s do business put a value on social conscience, it will be impossible to drive much change.